Jean-Denis Garon
Mirabel, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“The government is likely going to keep Parliament in session until very late this Friday. That is okay because it is our job to be here. However, this is happening because the government is not communicating with the opposition parties properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is one of those rare instances where Quebec will get its share of the cash, and it is a sign of recognition that the federal government is not good at this, not good at building things. The federal government is not on the ground; it is a government that is far removed from immediate matters.”
“Allowing air passenger complaints to be outsourced to private sector companies chosen by the Minister of Transportation , who is himself buddies with the airlines, which may even choose the companies that will handle complaints about them, was not part of the Liberals' platform.”
“At this point, we are taking the minister's word for it that he has reached an agreement with Quebec and that, based on this agreement, Quebec will receive its share of the funds, no strings attached. However, we had no way of knowing this from reading the bill.”
“The bill also states that amounts are to be paid out “at the times and in the manner that the Minister...considers appropriate.” Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a vague bill, and we are realizing, after months, that the intent is there, that negotiations are happening, but also that our questions were legitimate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the brave men and women who are here tonight and who will be staying up late. I was joking around earlier with my colleague and neighbour, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . All kidding aside, I think that she knows that I really like her.”
The complete record
Every one of 824 lines we hold for Jean-Denis Garon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 17.
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his scholarly presentation. I would also like to take this opportunity to greet his family members, who are here on the Hill today. At the end of his speech, my colleague said something very important. He said that it is important to study the estimates, because it is the role of Parliament and, by extension, that of the opposition, to serve as a check on the government and its spending. After what my colleague just said, I wonder if he feels uncomfortable being part of a government that introduced Bill C-5 , which is not even split up and in which the government, with the help of the Conservatives, is taking away the ability of Parliament and committees to exercise oversight and conduct a detailed analysis of such a substantial bill.”
“That is good news, but it points to all the decisions in the Liberal Party being made at the top. Even august members—no pun intended—like the member for Winnipeg North are not consulted. Nobody is consulted. I would like the new member for Terrebonne to tell me whether, as a Liberal backbencher, she feels she is consulted. Does she feel she is able to contribute to policy? Does she feel that the Prime Minister or the ministers listen to her, or on the contrary, as a new politician, does she feel like a spectator in the Liberal Party?”
“Madam Speaker, my regards to the member for Terrebonne and congratulations on her election. Last Thursday, we were studying the estimates with the Minister of Finance . He was asked if he intended to restore the electric vehicle subsidy. He told us that he was not interested and that he would find other ways to help dealers. Barely an hour ago, I asked the parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North , a question. He said that he did not know if the program would be reinstated. He said to keep lobbying to help the dealers, and he wished us good luck. That was the answer we got an hour ago. Fifteen minutes ago, we checked our phones, we checked La Presse, we checked our news channels, and we saw that the minister just announced that she is reinstating the subsidy program.”
“I wish him all the best in his career and his personal life. I hope that one day he will be able to look himself in the mirror and reflect on the values he wanted to convey in politics because they are hard to identify today.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a period for questions and comments. There will be no questions. I will make a comment. I rarely do that. I listened to my colleague's speech. It has become clear to me. The Liberals no longer have a moral compass, any ideas, values or principles. They have nothing left. They are prepared to do anything to keep their seat, their big salary and their pension. We saw that today: carbon tax eliminated, no more climate policy, Bill C‑5 , disregard for democracy, approving pipelines without assessments. We can add all of that to the list of violations of their purported principles. Today we are debating a Conservative motion. I disagree with the Conservatives, but at least they are consistent. There is a Conservative motion on zero-emission standards and my Liberal colleague is teaching us a lesson on environmentalism.”
“We have gotten the estimates, which we are still debating today, and there is not a penny for Quebec dealerships. It is not just a matter of saying that the coffers were empty. There was a promise to appropriate the funds. Where is that money, and does the parliamentary secretary believe that his government owes money to Quebec dealers, who provided those funds?”
“Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Winnipeg North told us to correct him if he was wrong. Here is the situation. The federal government paid incentives to get people to buy electric cars. Seventy per cent of the funds in Canada come from Quebec. Quebec dealerships, small and medium-sized businesses, were the ones that had to provide that money. They provided that money because the government, deciding not to have Parliament sit, could not appropriate the funds. At that time, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry met with Quebec dealers, looked them in the eyes, and told them that they would appropriate the funds, that the money to reimburse them would be in the next estimates, and that they had their word.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat my question because it is important. According to the Liberals, the fact that this was part of their election platform is enough to keep Parliament from doing its job. That alone is enough to short-circuit democracy. I trust my colleague and his ability to answer the question accurately. What other items on the Liberal election platform does he believe are so urgent and so important that it is worth short-circuiting Parliament and preventing us from doing our democratic work here in the House? What else is on the list? What items on the Liberal platform are more important than democracy and the fact that opposition members were also elected in the last federal election?”
“I would like my colleague to give me a list of what other items in their platform are so important so that we know what to expect in the coming months.”
“Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my friend, the parliamentary secretary who said this morning in committee that the Liberals feel that they are right to impose a gag order, cut short debate, fail to send the bill to committee and short-circuit all the work of Parliament because they indicated on the first page of their platform that they intended to introduce a bill on free trade within Canada. For the Liberals, the fact that there is a line about this in their platform and that there was an election that delivered them a minority is enough to diminish the importance of work in the House to improve the bill. What other items in the Liberal platform are so important that the Liberals could plan to pass them under a gag order after only a few weeks of sittings and thereby deny democracy?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned in her speech that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said one thing about oil and gas projects in English for Alberta and another in French for Quebec. I just want to confirm that she was indeed talking about how, in western Canada, the Prime Minister said in English that he would use his prerogative to authorize projects that he describes as being in the national interest and force them through. Is that actually what he said out west? Also, did he tell Quebeckers that he would respect provincial jurisdiction, especially on environmental matters? Is that what my colleague was talking about?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals were so afraid of losing their seats over the past few months, before the new Prime Minister came along, that they fell prey to a cult of personality. Now no one dares challenge this Prime Minister, who appeared like a saviour and says he is going to cut taxes, but will not say how he is going to pay for it, and this is after presenting a completely flawed economic and financial platform during the election. It has become a cult of personality. I am surprised to see that the Conservatives are so afraid of him that they have fallen prey as well.”
“Madam Speaker, the economists at the International Energy Agency have not said that. The economists at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have not said that. All economists are saying something: We have to take our time. Where was the gag order in the Conservatives' platform and the Liberals' platform? Where in both of those parties' platforms was the idea of muzzling Parliament after three weeks? My colleague is going to have to let me know. When he went to see the people in his riding, at what point did he say he was going to vote with the Liberals to put an end to debate and parliamentary work, despite the salary he earns? After three weeks, this is what the Conservatives are doing with the Liberals. I think if he had told his constituents that, he might not be here today.”
“The reason that the Liberals are pushing us to pass this bill quickly under a closure motion is that they see the oil industry as the only avenue for our future development. It is an electoral trap for the Conservatives. It is obvious that the government is happy because the Conservatives have fallen for it hook, line and sinker, like a bunch of amateurs.”
“Madam Speaker, first of all, before us are two bills that have been merged. Had the government given it any serious thought, it would have split the bill in two. Second, the member for Winnipeg North tells us that the bill reflects the fear that Canadians were feeling during the election campaign. I agree with him that the Liberals campaigned on fear. That was their main selling point. This bill also reflects the personal views of a Prime Minister who has total control over his cabinet and his government because he has appointed friends who have been with him throughout his career. It reflects his definition of free trade. It is a corporate definition that we have never seen anywhere else. As I said, it is a definition that Canadians themselves would never accept if these conditions were imposed by the United States.”
“They need to prove to us that they are going to stand up for Quebec. So far, 44 Liberal members from Quebec have risen to vote against a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly concerning the issue of one economy, not 13, as defined by the federal government. Is rising to show contempt for all 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec the right way to stand up for Quebec? (1640) So far, these people have shown that they are not doing what they were elected to do. Yes, there are a lot of them. Yes, there are 44 of them. The shame that they must feel for their behaviour so far must be proportional to their numbers in the House. This closure motion is unacceptable. For the sake of democracy, this bill must be referred to committee.”
“The Liberals still have not tabled a budget, however. Now they tell us that this bill can bypass the democratic process because it was written on the first page of their election platform. Where are the other pages? Where is the necessary budget? An election was called, and we were told that the world had changed but public finances had not. We are being told that we have to create a new Canadian economy with a bill that allows no room for consultations or democratic work. If the Liberals want to table their platform, they should table all of it. They should do all the work, not just half of it. I see members from Quebec over there at the back, futzing around on their phones and ignoring the debates. They were elected to stand up for Quebec. Now the ball is in their court.”
“They are right to say that Quebeckers elected a lot of Liberals. They are reminding us of that, and we are taking note. We know that; we are intelligent people. Those members were elected to defend Quebeckers. The ball is in their court. Quebec members are telling us that the Quebec government, employers and unions are in favour of their bill. The Liberal parroting has well and truly begun. They kept saying it over and over throughout question period. Well, then, why do they not send the bill to committee? Call the unions, the workers and the employers to appear. If they think that Quebeckers would support this bill in its entirety, why are they not letting those people be called to appear before the committee? The Prime Minister met with his buddies from the oil and gas industry. A list of projects is on the way this fall.”
“The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals because they have not tabled a budget yet. They are up in arms about transparency and accountability, yet here they are giving up the opportunity to do the work in committee. That work would give us a chance to hear from witnesses, and I am not just talking about witnesses from Quebec or about Greenpeace representatives or environmentalists. I am also talking about people who think like the Conservatives and who would try to turn this bill into something I would oppose. The Conservatives see doing that work as obstructing the Prime Minister , who appears to have become Canada's new monarch. What do Conservative members do for the money they are paid? The 44 members from Quebec here in the House are right to say that there was a fear campaign during the election.”
“The member who spoke before me said that this is the Conservatives' best policy option right now. That is why they will pass the bill the way it is. In other words, the Conservatives are voting to short-circuit the committee. They are voting in favour of not having enough time to amend the bill. If the Conservatives have a better definition of what free trade should be, they are now voting to deprive themselves of the opportunity to improve the bill based on their own convictions. That is pathetic. The Liberals were elected, and the Conservatives are rolling over and accepting the outcome. They are telling themselves that people do not want anyone to stand in the way and that the Prime Minister is popular. What kind of democracy do we have if a gag order is imposed barely three weeks after the House comes back?”
“I would imagine that the Conservatives are telling themselves that they have no leader, that the Prime Minister is popular right now and that people will not actually remember how they are voting because they are too busy having backyard barbeques. A few days ago, the Conservatives voted to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. There were two votes in one week, and the Conservatives voted with the Liberals against Quebec both times. What the Conservatives do not realize is that they can be in favour of the bill and still vote against the closure motion. They are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease, as my colleague from Jonquière would say. They just need to say no to the closure motion and let the committee to do its job.”
“Let us imagine for one second going to the United States and telling them that this is our definition of free trade. Everyone here would cry foul and claim that Canada's sovereignty has been violated, "sovereignty" being a word that the Liberals have suddenly rediscovered. What is mind‑boggling, once again, is that the Conservatives are supporting closure. Their support for the bill would be understandable. (1635) Why are they supporting this gag order? They are supporting the gag order because they are stuck. They have no leader. For years they have been talking about nothing but oil. Doug Ford stabbed them in the back during the election campaign. They have lost the political machinery. They are also getting stabbed in the back by Danielle Smith, who supports the bill.”
“If we go by the Canadian formula, it means that the definition of free trade would be to tell the Americans that we are renegotiating the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and that if there are any projects that suit Donald Trump, such as those that violate the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Species at Risk Act or the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, then the Americans can come and violate the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations and the wildlife area regulations.”
“I am not saying that is what will happen, but the bill would certainly allow it and that it is dangerous in a democracy. I personally have a hard time imagining the Prime Minister sitting down with Donald Trump in the south and telling him that our definition of free trade is to let him violate our laws when it suits him. I taught economics. I have spent my entire life studying economics, and I have never seen a definition of free trade that looked like the Prime Minister's definition. It is mind‑boggling. What does that mean?”
“He is going to meet behind closed doors with the oil industry, which is preparing a list of oil projects and is interested only in oil and almost nothing else. When we read this bill, we see that there may be one Canadian economy, but it is the Alberta economy. There will be only one economy, and it will be Alberta's. The bill will serve the oil industry. Now the Liberals are promising us free trade before Canada Day. What is mind-boggling, once again, is their definition of free trade, which is essentially that, if the Prime Minister likes a bill, then all other laws can be broken. The Prime Minister can talk to his friends in a certain industry, his friends then manage to convince a minister, who holds some bogus consultation and Ottawa gets its way.”
“The first part of the bill seeks to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade. Basically, what we are doing is telling the federal government to take a step back. Ultimately, what the federal government will do is recognize each province's regulations to ensure the mobility of goods and services. They will say that if the good or service meets a province's regulations, it will be recognized. That is true decentralization. In a way, it is an example of federalism that could work. However, they then throw part 2 of Bill C‑5 into the mix. The title of this bill is mind-boggling. The Liberals are telling us that this is a bill to create one Canadian economy. We read the bill and then we look at the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister .”
“Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues in the House. I find it rather interesting that we are spending a lot of time discussing the substance of the matter and the bill itself, when we are looking at a closure motion. After a little over three weeks in the House, we are already dealing with a gag order. First, the bill itself is a problem. It is because two bills were merged into one. What the government has done is it has used the old tactic of putting members of Parliament in a tough spot by preventing them from doing their job properly on voting day. This makes a mockery of democracy as well, because there are two parts to the bill. The first part is not very contentious. When we listen to the comments of members from all parties, it is not very contentious.”
“Are there cases where good projects cannot go ahead because of environmental assessments? Does he think that is legitimate?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague knows that I appreciate him. He also knows that I come from his riding, where there is a Garon Street in honour of my grandfather. I know that developing our resources is important to the people of Saguenay. However, when we look at the Conservative agenda, it is clear that they want no environmental assessments. What we get from their speeches is that as soon as an environmental assessment prevents a project from going forward, instead of questioning the project itself or trying to improve it, they systematically question the assessment. As a result, this is now a party that will likely support a bill that guts a large number of existing environmental protections, both federal and provincial. I would like my colleague to tell me the circumstances in which environmental assessments are valid.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it very well: Essentially, the bill requires the entire country to blindly trust a minister who will not be bound in any way by environmental assessments. I recall the fairly recent Bay du Nord project, which received unfavourable environmental assessments. In the end, even the environment minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , had to swallow his pride, listen to the industry and grovel before it. Ultimately, this project went ahead, despite the unfavourable assessments. What does history tell us about how much we can trust this government when it comes to the environment? Does it not show that this bill is, in fact, a danger to the public?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the minister is so fond of his own bill because it would give excessive power to him personally. The minister will be able to designate projects as being in the national interest, hold non-binding consultations and have the federal government adopt environmental standards. Nothing would prevent the federal government from adopting the lowest environmental standard in the least rigorous province. Essentially, that would result in the federal government allowing one province to legislate in the place of another province that is fulfilling its responsibilities, such as Quebec. I would like the minister to tell us what the point of having provinces is.”
“In my view, there is no dispute as to facts, opinions or conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact, which would ordinarily be a matter of debate. I asked the minister, “Were these carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of an election to buy votes in eight provinces delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?” It was a very clear, direct and succinct question, and the minister's answer was no. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege and that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study.”
“That suggests that the minister did not want to admit that the money had not come from administering the carbon pricing regime but had instead come from public funds, collected in part from Quebec taxpayers. (1540) The fact that he himself is responsible for matters pertaining to appropriations and the budget suggests that he had a vested interest in keeping Canadians and Quebeckers from finding out that the Canada carbon rebate payments had come out of the public funds to which Canadians and Quebeckers contribute. While I recognize that vigilance is required in these situations and that matters of this nature are not to be taken lightly before being found to be a prima facie breach of privilege, I still believe that this question of privilege warrants serious consideration.”
“During question period today, the Prime Minister said that the final Canada carbon rebate payment was issued to help millions and millions of Canadian families through a transition period, adding that many families outside Quebec and British Columbia need this transition period. That is the reason being given for the amounts paid out as part of the Canada carbon rebate during the election. Third, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that the minister intended to mislead the House, given that when he gave his answer, the finance minister had every reason to hide the fact that the money used had come from public funds. I asked the minister the same question many times before I got his answer.”
“It is quite obvious that a minister with so much experience could not have thought that the Canada carbon rebate issued on April 22, after the deductions had been suspended, was part of the carbon pricing system put in place by the previous government, in which he was a minister. However, during the election, the media reported that a spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Canada had stated that the final rebate was “a transitional measure to prevent millions of households from suddenly losing their support.” In response to the leader of the Bloc Québécois earlier today, the Prime Minister confirmed this position from the election.”
“I respectfully submit that the minister's response meets the criteria set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , namely, that the House has been misled following statements made in the House by one of its members, whether that member is an MP, a minister or even a prime minister. First, the minister's answer is misleading because it implies that the rebates were made through the carbon pricing mechanism, when in fact the money came from the public purse, which is made up of taxes paid by Canadians among other things. The minister therefore seems to be saying that this money paid to Canadians does not come in part from the pockets of Quebeckers, which is just not so. Second, there is no doubt in our minds that the minister knew that his answer was likely to mislead the House.”
“On page 82 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , one of the grounds for contempt is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. This point is also reiterated on page 112. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , it has been agreed on several occasions by successive Speakers that three criteria must be met to demonstrate that a member, in this case the Minister of Finance, has deliberately misled the House. In a ruling on May 5, 2016, at page 2956 of the Debates, Speaker Regan reiterated these criteria. First, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House.”
“However, the House will recall that Ottawa had decided to pay the $3.7 billion to Canadians, with the notable exception of Quebeckers, and that the sums ranging between $220 and $456 were paid out in eight Canadian provinces and territories. Thus, the Canadian carbon rebate cheques that were sent out in April, which cost $3.7 billion, were not funded by Canadian consumer carbon pricing and Canadians never paid the amounts they nevertheless received. The Minister of Finance tried to mislead us by deliberately stating that the carbon tax rebate cheques issued during the election campaign in the form of the Canada carbon rebate were a result of consumer carbon pricing even though the tax had not been collected beforehand. In our view, such a statement constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege, if not contempt of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. Yesterday, during consideration of the main estimates in committee of the whole, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue deliberately misled the House when he answered one of my questions. I asked him several times whether he acknowledged that the Canada carbon rebate cheques that were issued by the federal government in the middle of the election were sent to people before the tax was collected. The minister finally responded that no, they were not. I invite the Chair to consult the Hansard on the matter. It seems that the minister did not see fit to admit the truth. If we refer to the events leading up to the Prime Minister 's decision during the election campaign, an order was made to suspend carbon pricing and eliminate the system as soon as the new government was elected.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister, whom I hold in high regard, knows full well that Canadians were not paying the carbon tax when they got their cheques. The Prime Minister himself confirmed that he had eliminated the carbon tax on April 1 but that he had nevertheless issued the quarterly cheque for the period from April to June at the end of the month. If tax revenues were not used to cover those cheques, who paid for them? The Liberal Party called the cheques a transitional measure. We are calling them a gift to Canadians at the expense of Quebec taxpayers. Will the Liberals pay back the $814 million they owe Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, six days before the election, the Prime Minister sent out cheques, paid for by Quebeckers, to almost everyone in Canada except Quebeckers. The Quebec National Assembly was unanimous: The Liberals need to reimburse us now. Quebeckers are also suffering due to the cost of living. They should not have to hand over $450 to families in Alberta or $300 to Ontarians in the form of fake carbon rebates. The Liberals owe us $814 million. If they do not pay us back, that is theft. Are they going to steal our money, or are they going to pay us back?”
“Madam Chair, the minister says it is false that a large part of the retaliatory measures against the U.S. tariffs have been suspended. Contrary to what Oxford Economics says, the Department of Finance has not submitted any documents and there is no evidence to support its claim. Does the minister think that publicly squabbling with consulting firms that are trying to help their clients contributes to predictability and a good business climate in Canada?”
“Madam Chair, what the minister is saying would be true if, during the election campaign, the government had not included $20 billion from retaliatory tariffs against the United States in its financial platform to fund operating expenses. The “Fiscal Monitor” shows us that, as of March, $600 million in retaliatory measures against U.S. tariffs had been collected. If we multiply that by 12, it is just under $8 billion. Since then, the government has suspended certain measures. How is it going to get to $20 billion?”
“Madam Chair, the minister's problem is that he is reaching out instead of providing figures. I am asking him for the value of a tax credit. How much do Canadians pay annually in tax credits, in money that goes directly to American web giants like GAFAM that contribute to disinformation in our democracy?”
“Madam Chair, I would like the minister to tell me whether he needs a parliamentary committee to provide me with the value of the tax expenditure associated with these tax credits. Is he able to obtain that figure for us?”
“Madam Chair, I would like to point out that since 2018, approximately 40 daily newspapers, 400 community newspapers, 42 radio stations and 11 television stations have disappeared in Canada. Their revenues have partly gone to web giants like GAFAM. The government has done nothing and has ignored the industry's demands. I would like to know how much this tax expenditure costs the government every year. I am talking about the tax credits Canadians get to then send their money to Americans who contribute to disinformation.”
“Madam Chair, the Income Tax Act has been under the minister's purview since the early 1960s. The Income Tax Act provides that Canadian advertising expenses incurred in foreign media are not deductible for income tax purposes. However, the act is extremely outdated. Today, we have companies that are deducting costs incurred for advertising with foreign web giants, specifically the big American groups that we are trying to avoid and that are often at the heart of the disinformation campaigns we are seeing today in our democracies. Does the minister intend to reform the Income Tax Act to ensure that these tax deductions are no longer accepted?”
“Madam Chair, can the minister tell us by how much the government is going to reduce spending on civil servants compared to what was expected? By how much is it going to increase spending on consultants?”
“Madam Speaker, indeed, we look forward to having a budget. We have said that several times. Does the minister agree that if health transfers are counted as operating expenses, the transfers to the provinces will artificially run up the deficit?”
“Madam Chair, are we to understand that once the accounting is reformed, and we are told that the model is the United Kingdom, a country that has a different model of government than ours, all the transfers to the provinces will count as operating expenses instead of capital expenses?”